Drake Chemical

Fact Sheet: June 1995

Site Activities

Soil Excavation

During recent soil excavation activities, EPA uncovered three tanks,
the largest of which is approximately six feet in diameter. EPA also found
over 50 drums. More than half of the drums are crushed or partially decomposed.
EPA will take samples of the liquid contents of the tanks and drums and
send the samples to a laboratory for analysis. Until EPA receives the
sampling results, the tank and drum contents will be handled as though
they contain hazardous materials. EPA will follow all hazardous waste
removal safety guidelines.

EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) are committed to paying
for any additional cost of removing the newly discovered tanks and drums.
EPA will not incinerate any of the drums found during soil excavation
at the Drake Site.

Air Monitoring

Throughout excavation activities, EPA will be conducting continuous air
monitoring at the borders of the site. Also, EPA has performed 30 days
of air sampling during the excavations. EPA will use the data gathered
through the air sampling in the meteorological (weather) model review
(discussed below) and in making future decisions.

Meteorological Model Review

EPA already has obtained a meteorological model and
will be using it to examine the potential effects of area meteorological
conditions, such as air stagnation and inversion, on the performance of
the temporary incinerator at the Drake Site.

Trial Burn Risk Assessment

At the request of area residents, EPA will conduct an assessment of the
risks involved in conducting the trial burn of the incinerator. A trial
burn is a test run of the incinerator using soil from the site. The trial
burn helps EPA determine if the incinerator meets current health and safety
standards. EPA will complete the risk assessment and make it available
for public review prior to the trial burn.

Clean-up Alternatives Revisited

This section continues a discussion of EPA's initial analysis of
clean-up technologies for the Drake Chemical Site begun in the May 1995
fact sheet (This fact sheet is available for review at the information
repositories. See page 4 for locations.)

EPA evaluated 21 clean-up alternatives according to a set of "ground
rules" required under Superfund. The ground rules include each alternative's
overall protection of human health and the environment, its compliance
with Federal and state environmental laws, its cost, and its long-term
effectiveness. Next, EPA evaluated each proposed alternative's technology
based on the following criteria: its compatibility with site conditions;
its ability to achieve treatment goals; how easily it could be implemented;
its developmental status; and its reliability. EPA also examined each
clean-up alternative's ability to meet the overall goal for the site of
unlimited access and unrestricted use.

After evaluating the clean-up alternatives against the criteria mentioned
above, EPA ruled out 16 of the 21 alternatives. (Refer to the May 1995
fact sheet for specific details.) EPA continued to evaluate the remaining
five clean-up alternatives. After careful consideration, EPA decided that
rotary kiln incineration is the most suitable clean-up alternative. All
five clean-up alternatives are described below.

No action with monitoring.

Sludges, soils, and sediments would be left in their current state. EPA
would monitor the ground water and surface water on a regular schedule.

EPA rejected the no action with monitoring alternative because it does
not eliminate or reduce site contamination.

Infrared incineration.

The mobile, high-temperature incinerator proposed in this alternative
uses electrically-powered silicon carbide rods to burn contaminants. The
components of this clean-up process (including post-incineration activities)
are similar to those in the rotary kiln incineration process described
in the box to the left.

EPA rejected infrared incineration. Although EPA considers infrared incineration
to be a proven technology, the process would take longer than rotary kiln
incineration to clean up the site and would cost much more.

In-situ vitrification.

Soils, sludges, and sediments are electrically melted and transformed
into a stable, glass-like solid. After using this process, EPA would replace
the soil and replant the site.

EPA rejected in-situ vitrification because it is not yet a fully developed
technology and it is not suitable for large-scale operations such as that
required at the Drake Chemical Site.

In-situ soil washing.

Treated water from the on-site waste water treatment plant is sprayed
on the ground and allowed to "percolate" through the contaminated
soils, much like water through coffee grounds in a coffee maker. This
water is then removed from the soils through extraction wells and treated
on site.

EPA rejected in-situ soil washing because the process would not sufficiently
reduce levels of some major site contaminants, including beta-naphthylamine
and chlorinated compounds, and, would produceliquid wastes needing further
treatment.

EPA's Chosen Clean-up Alternative

Rotary kiln incineration.

Sludges, soils, and sediments are excavated and treated in a temporary,
mobile, high temperature incinerator. (The incinerator includes a large,
rotating drum; a secondary treatment area; and a pollution control system.)
EPA anticipates the incineration process will take one year. Once the
cleanup is completed, EPA will dismantle the temporary incinerator and
dispose of the incinerator ash off site. Next, EPA will replace the soil
and replant the site. After landscaping activities are completed, the
site will be available for unlimited access and unrestricted use.

EPA selected on-site rotary kiln incineration from the five clean-up
alternatives because it is the most effective technology available to
destroy the toxic chemicals in the sludges, soils, and sediments at this
site. Rotary kiln incineration is a proven technology which has been used
successfully at other sites to treat hazardous wastes.

Other Cleap-up Technologies

Advanced Treatment Technologies

Advanced treatment technologies use existing science or engineering in
a way that has not been tried before. In other words, most new technologies
are not breakthroughs, they are innovative changes in existing processes.
More importantly, advanced treatment technologies are not a cure-all.
Many problems and questions, such as their degree of effectiveness and
reliability, remain. These issues need to be addressed before EPA is willing
to use advanced treatment technologies.

Classifying Advanced Treatment Technologies

EPA received a number of questions from citizens on available technologies.
In response, EPA is providing the following description of the program
it established to evaluate and encourage the use of new technologies at
Superfund sites. The program is called Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation (SITE). The goals of the program are to ensure that "innovative"
technologies are developed, demonstrated, and made commercially available.

Under the SITE program, EPA defines technology in the following ways:

Emerging technology is defined as being at an earlier stage of development
than an innovative technology where the research has not yet successfully
passed laboratory or pilot scale testing.

Innovative technology is defined as any fully developed technology
for which cost or performance information is incomplete.
As a result, EPA considers an innovative technology to be still developing
and therefore commercially unavailable.

Alternate available technology is defined as being fully proven and
in routine commercial or private use.

Regardless of the definition that applies to a technology, EPA will
not classify it as available for use at Superfund sites until
the technology has demonstrated reliability and performance and cost effectiveness
and has successfully met the criteria in the SITE program's four-phase
technology evaluation program. As a result, a number of technologies remain
in the developmental phase according to EPA's criteria.

Assessing Other Technologies

Area citizens have cited various technologies from an EPA report as
possible alternatives to rotary kiln incineration. Following is a summary
of the report's assessment of these technologies. They are discussed in
general categories rather than by individual technology. (Refer to the
May 1995 fact sheet for a discussion of some of these technologies.)

EPA decided chemical treatment methods are inappropriate for
the site because these processes are useful only when a single chemical
is contaminating a site. Over 60 compounds are present at the Drake Site.

EPA chose not to use physical treatment methods because physical
methods do not destroy wastes, but just change them into forms that are
easier to treat further or to dispose. Many of these forms do not meet
the overall goal for the Drake Chemical Site - unlimited access and unrestricted
use.

EPA ruled out biological treatment methods such as biodegradation
because engineered bacteria often kill the natural bacteria or simply
do not survive in an environment outside of a laboratory. Also, because
of the lack of control over environmental factors, results from laboratory
tests cannot always be repeated in the real world.

As a result, EPA has chosen a thermal destruction method (rotary
kiln incineration) as the clean-up alternative. EPA considers incineration
a proven technology because it has passed the four phases of the SITE
program and has years of proven operational experience. Also, incineration
has been chosen at over 50 Superfund sites nationwide. The incinerator
operations at the Drake Chemical Site are expected to take about one year.
When clean-up operations are finished, the incinerator will be disassembled
and moved away from the area.

The map in this fact sheet (not included in Internet file) shows
the current condition of the Drake Chemical Site. EPA and USACE are conducting
soil excavation activities in the large shaded area and in the utility
corridor.* Over 50 drums and three tanks have been uncovered during these
excavations. EPA will be moving all materials found during the excavations
off site for disposal. Throughout excavation operations, EPA will be conducting
air monitoring along the borders of the site.

*The utility corridor is the planned location for water and sewage lines.

Keeping you Informed About the Drake Chemical Site

In order to keep the community up-to-date on developments at the Drake
Chemical Site, EPA will issue fact sheets on a monthly basis.
Copies of fact sheets will be sent to everyone on the Drake mailing list
and will be available at the information repositories and other public
locations.

The Lock Haven Express will print bi-weekly
descriptions of scheduled activities at the site and EPA will
publish advisories about on-site developments as needed.

EPA is making arrangements to have an EPA representative present
in Lock Haven on a regular basis. The representative will be
available to answer any questions regarding work being performed at the
site.

Tune in to your local radio stations! EPA representatives will
be participating periodically in talk-back radio programs. Community
members will hear updated information on clean-up activities and will
be able to ask questions on the air.

Information Repositories

Copies of fact sheets, legal documents, studies, and information relevant
to the Drake Chemical Site are available for public review at the following
locations:

Lock Haven City Hall
20 East Church Street
717-893-5910

Ross Public Library
232 West Main Street
717-748-3321

Stevenson Library
Lock Haven University
717-893-230

EPA Contacts

If you have questions or comments about the Drake Chemical Site, please
contact: